Shri Vinod Garg v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Shri Vinod Garg. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. I.T.A. No.658 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.12.2010 -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocatefor the appellant. for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assesseeunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “theAct”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NewDelhi dated 5.3.2010 in I.T.(SS)A.No.16/DEL/2008 proposing toraise following substantial questions of law:- “a.Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in presumingthe deposit in the bank account of the wife as that ofthe appellant. the deposit in the bank account of the wife as that ofthe appellant. b.Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in not followingearlier order in similar case. earlier order in similar case. c. Whether the Tribunal has erred in law in sustainingthe addition u/s 158BC even though no evidence wasfound as a result of search. the addition u/s 158BC even though no evidence wasfound as a result of search. d. Whether Tribunal has erred in law in passing perverseorder without any evidence.”order without any evidence.” 2. In pursuance of search at the premises of theassessee, assessment was framed under Section 158BC of theAct, resulting in certain additions including the impugned additionof `2,87,100/-, which has been upheld by the Tribunal as under:- “4.The finding of the Assessing Officer is that “theassessee had deposited Rs.2,87,100/- in the bankaccount of his wife”. Since it was the assessee whohad deposited the amount in the bank account of hiswife, it was for the assessee to explain the sourcethereof. The assessee cannot wash of his hands bysaying that since his wife is major and independent,he is not required to explain the source of deposit inthe bank account. The decision of Tribunal in the caseof Shri Rajesh Mangla is distinguishable on facts. Inthe said case the Tribunal noted that the wife of theassessee was an LIC Agent and receivingcommission income. In the said case it was alsofound that the deposits in bank account were out ofgift received by Smt. Sunita Mangla, wife of theassessee. However, in the present case noexplanation is offered regarding the source ofassessee to deposit or the source of wife to earn orreceive such income. Since finding of the AssessingOfficer remains unchallenged, the addition is requiredto be sustained. As regards deposit in the bankaccount of the assessee, though it is stated to be outof sale proceeds of the scooter, but since no evidenceis filed in this regard to show as to whether the assessee has possessed any scooter, the addition isto be sustained.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee. 4. Only contention put forward is that the impugnedfinding is perverse as deposit in the bank account of the wifecould not be a ground for making addition to the income of theassessee. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Courtdated 13.8.2007 in I.T.A. No.258 of 2006 CITv. Mrs. AnjuBhayanaand judgment of Madras High Court in CITv. R.M.Patel (HUF (2008) 9 DTR Judgments 260. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. Whether ornot a case for addition is made out is a question of fact. TheTribunal has clearly found that deposit in the bank account of thewife was made by the assessee himself and the wife was not ableto show any independent source. In these circumstances, theimpugned finding cannot be held to be perverse. As regards thejudgments relied upon, the same are on individual facts whereinthe source of deposit was established unlike the present case.Accordingly, the said judgments are distinguishable. 6. No substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 13, 2010ashwani 5. We are unable to accept the submission. Whether ornot a case for addition is made out is a question of fact. TheTribunal has clearly found that deposit in the bank account of thewife was made by the assessee himself and the wife was not ableto show any independent source. In these circumstances, theimpugned finding cannot be held to be perverse. As regards thejudgments relied upon, the same are on individual facts whereinthe source of deposit was established unlike the present case.Accordingly, the said judgments are distinguishable. 6. No substantial question of law arises. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 13, 2010ashwani (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE